Navigate:

May 24, 2011

Categories:

The general shape of American Israel politics is that when a President really wants to get something done, he can move in spite of slings and arrows from Congress; but that members of Congress from both parties will exact a price for disputes between the White House and the Israeli government.

The most powerful Democrat in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), on Monday night publicly rejected President Barack Obama’s decision to use a recent speech to lay out aspects of a potential peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

“The place where negotiating will happen must be at the negotiating table – and nowhere else,” Reid declared in a speech to an annual gathering in Washington of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). “Those negotiations … will not happen – and their terms will not be set – through speeches, or in the streets, or in the media.”

When the Senate leader added, “No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else,” the lights quickly came up on the vast audience and most in the crowd at the Washington Convention Center rose to their feet and applauded.

What's slightly puzzling at the moment is Obama's endgame. He made a move, took a hit...and now what?

Right now the president has gotten the worst of all worlds: He's pissed off the Israelis, failed to satisfy and preempt Palestinians from their initiative and given the Republicans a ready-made issue to hammer him. And for what? Applause from the Europeans at the G-8? That's not smart.

Share this Article

Reader Comments (17)

Pages

1

Well, Andrew sullivan has an article up saying that clinton and BIBI agreed to this idea in 2010. This, therefore, is a backstab by bibi!
Furthermore, Merkel, a few months back, called BIBI and told him that you have done nothing for the pace process.
This is Nut and Yahoos far right agenda, not the rest of the world.
O yeah, the POTUS has Russia on his side.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/a-joint-statement-from-clinton-and-netanyahu.html
Here is sullivans find on nut and yahoos joint statement with clinton on the matter.
BIG news, that our MSM will not report!

If this doesn't show the depth of Israels undue ability to manipulate our politics I don't know what does. I'm not blaming Israel mind you, if Jellyfish preservation had AIPAC money they would get the same treatment. I blame the spineless desire to be manipulated from self-serving cowards like Harry Reid.

Does it even occur to David Miller and Harry Reid that this President was for once thinking what is in the best interest of the U.S.? It is pathetic that Reid puts political opportunism ahead of U.S. interests. I applaud the President who decided to articulate what was in America's interests rather than the usual subordination to Israel. I find the pandering at AIPAC deeply disgusting and disturbing.

Preplanned Attack by GOP and Bibi, Just Like they Did to Clinton; per Laura Rozen
""Netanyahu had solicited an invitation to address both houses of Congress next week--a move White House advisers saw as a direct overture from Netanyahu to the GOP leadership in Congress.
It's not the first time Netanyahu has come in for such criticism. During his last term as prime minister during the Bill Clinton administration, Democrats raised the charge that Netanyahu was coordinating his agenda in Washington with the GOP--and in particular, with then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
At the outset of today's remarks to the press on the meeting, Obama slyly referenced the "great honor" Netanyahu was receiving by addressing both houses of Congress."
Now what?? Wait for President of the US, Bibi, to tell you Ben!! Then watch and see how many Arabs he kills when they March on all of his Borders on June 5! They killed 20 last time. How will that be spinned by the Press and Congress, Israeli sycophants??? This should be fun to watch!
As for the "Temporary Leader" or "Black Hussein" as he's known in Israel, I'd bet he's not giving in this time. It's embarrassing to support Apartheid.

Perhaps the pundits could actually listen to the President and believe what he "gets out of it" is the chance to advance the prospect of peace. I'm so tired of the cynical, political interpretations applied to everything.
Imagine if people actually did "take the President at his word"--we might actually reach a higher level of understanding and get things done!

Ben,
Wouldn't a better question be what is Netanyahu's end game? Afterall, Israel is at risk of Palestinian envelopment that neither they nor the US can control because of population growth, and they are at risk of isolation. How can they sustain long term?
Netanyahu, Republicans, the media and some cowardly and sleazy Democrats like Harry Reid have been so dishonest in their response and analysis of what the President said it's breathtaking.
As has been noted in other posts, Andrew Sullivan has a link on his site to the November 2010 JOINT statement from Secretary Clinton and Bibi Netanyahu stating EXACTLY the same thing the President said onThursday about the 1967 borders, word-for-word.
To show how dishonest Ben and the rest of the media is on this matter, here is a link to POLITICO'S report on the meeting and the statment: http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1110/ClintonBibi_hold_marathon_six_hour_meeting.html
The question is no longer is Bibi Netanyahu, his supporters and many in the media over-reacting or outright lying, but why and how they are getting away with it?

Haven't we all heard enough from Aaron David Miller? I've yet to read a useful comment or interesting observation. Is it possible Obama is willing to take some hard medicine because he wants to see some positive momentum even if it's done grudgingly?

What did Obama say that was so outlandish? He gave a pro-Israel speech that called on the Israelis and the Palestinians to stop stalling. The politics in Washington is nuts. And Reid is an embarrasment.

Posted By: What did Obama say that was so outlandish? He gave a pro-Israel speech that called on the Israelis | May 24, 2011 at 12:07 PM

That quote from Sullivan means nothing. QUoting it as he did is entirely misleading, no surprise coming from him.
If you read it, all it says it that Clinton reiterated "the Palestinian goal..."
It never says Netanyahu or Israel agreed with that goal, or that it would be the basis for negotiations. Just that she stated that was the Palestinian goal. Who cares? The Palestinians can have whatever goal they want.
It would be like if during the budget debate the GOP put out a statement saying "The President reiterated his goal of keeping Obamacare and the Speaker reiterated his goal of repealing it" It doesn't mean the other side agrees with the goal, just that they're sttaing what it is.
The Palestinians can have any goal they want.
Nowhere in that statement does it say Israel agrees with that goal or that it will serve as the basis for talks. Again, Bibi NEVER agreed to any such goal. Never. To say so is utterly false.
Moreover, it says that any Israeli security requirements(i.e. Jordan valley and other settlements, airspace, borders, refugees, etc...) will be taken into account.
It further mentions "ending the conflict".
Obama's statement:
A)Adopted the Palestinian goal as official US policy-without even warning Israel ahead of time. It announced that official US policy is that everything east of the 67 line belongs to the Palestinians as a default position and that any Israeli claim to it must involve ceding their own territory in an agreed swap with the Palestinians. That official US policy is that nothing east(including Jerusalem and its Old City) of the 67 line is, will be, or ever legally was Israeli.
B)Did not take Israeli security requirements by calling on them to make a complete withdrawal from the Jordan valley, among other things
C)Did not come anywhere near to ending the conflict. Rather, it said Israel will make concessions on land(really their only card), and then once the Palestinians have all their land, then we'll worry about refugees and Jerusalem.
So, Obama's statement basically was a radical departure from the 2010 statement.

How is this bad? The american population doesn't give a hoot about Isreal and Palestine? two tiny countries that don't have the population to be buyers or the resoruces to be vendors. How the heck does it help America? Not at all. This is a fake issue trumped up by Isreali's as being a big deal. It is only a big deal to Isreali's, not Americans. Unfortunately, Isreal has some powerful friends who have money and the only way this will hurt the president is that he won't get money. But the President has set up a system that he doesn't really need their money as he is gettign help from your average joe's $20 contributions. Harry Reid is not getting contributions from teh little guy, he needs the many the Isreali lobby provides. He already almost got beat by a woman with little credibility. so he's rightfully scared and will kiss any boot for that not to happen again.

The saddest thing about this whole issue, is that the Media is just spewing the GOP talking points, as opposed to reporting what Pres Obama actually said. He did not say Israel must agree to the 1967 borders, nor did he say it was a *starting point* for negotiations. He said it was a basis for negotiations, with strategic land swaps, which is no different from what Bush & Clinton outlined during their Presidencies. It's also what everyone knows will be how any final Peace agreement is written.